Your one stop pundit shop.
Michael Gerson spews Republican talking points on the CIA. Different day, same agenda.
Kathleen Parker isn't a big Michael Steele fan (to be fair, I'm pretty sure it's only Democrats who love the guy):
The emerging consensus is that Steele, though he means well, has the wrong personality for the job.
"He's goofy and light in heavy times," as one insider put it.
Many are suddenly nostalgic for "whatshisname" -- the guy who ran the party before Steele, whose name no one can quite remember. Oh, yeah, Mike Duncan. At least he kept the trains running on time, they say. To which criticism Steele says, "Stuff it."
One could rest one's case at this juncture, but the list of complaints doesn't stop at Steele's shoot-from-the-lip style.
Ed Gillespie says that when it comes to President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, it should be payback time.
Gracie-Marie Turner and Joseph R. Antos outline a Republican alternative for health care reform and it's clear that they've read Frank Luntz's talking points.
Thomas Frank on the politicians who love styling themselves as "gangs" and the media who eats it up:
What the Gangs of D.C. nearly always represent -- and what distinguishes them from a mere troupe, squad or faction -- is power, glorious power. Gangs are but a handful and yet they control our fate; they divert the streams of history; and they do so secretly, away from public view. [...]
In this sense, the Gangs of D.C. are a continuation of the original. We haven't really forgotten China's Gang of Four; we just don't find much that's objectionable about oligarchy anymore. Power is sexy, and the media's lustful admiration for gang rule is merely a Beltway form of pornography.
Michael Steele reprises his "Change In A Tea Bag" speech for the pages of the Washington Times.
Rick Amato makes a powerful plea for helping those injured while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he does include one glaring, debunked, GOP talking point about a railroad from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
Stephen Sestanovich says that President Obama must confront the Jackson-Vanik amendment:
By discarding this outdated, meaningless policy, President Obama can help define a much-needed new strategy toward Russia. But getting rid of Jackson-Vanik has proved difficult. Bill Clinton, in 1994, affirmed that Moscow was in full compliance with the amendment and yet never managed to free Russia from its provisions permanently. George W. Bush also tried and failed.
Like his predecessors, the president will find his efforts stymied by Congress. Russia is in the last phase of negotiations to join the World Trade Organization — a process that has already dragged on for 16 years. By keeping Jackson-Vanik on the books until the process is complete, Congress expects to be able to demand more favorable treatment for American goods in the Russian market. Lawmakers who invoke this amendment nowadays aren’t thinking about human rights, but about DVD piracy and chicken exports.
Maureen Dowd has a new column up, so if you wrote about Dick Cheney this week, check and see if she stole your material.